Objectivits1 These are the Muslims in America. Overall, peace loving good people.

"A day of typical camp activities awaits: scavenger hunts, a "pirates and princesses" dress-up play and water-balloon tosses. But there is a difference here: Those activities are sandwiched between Koran recital, the Dzhur afternoon prayer and story time that includes tales about Mecca and Muhammad."

It's impossible not to notice that JDN has a considerable emotional investment in dismissing the idea of Islamic stealth jihad. Robert Spencer has written an entire book on the subject (Stealth Jihad), and both Raymond Ibrahim and David Horowitz underline the myriad causes for concern here. The mere fact that certain "respected conservatives" are crying foul can't erase the evidence. I urge all readers of this thread to read the Ibrahim article and watch Horowitz's speech and form your own opinions. As Ibrahim correctly observes, this wouldn't be the first time that massive infiltration of the U.S. government has occurred and gone unnoticed with the exception of a few lone voices in the wilderness, who were later proven correct despite having been roundly condemned at the time.

Crafty's description of them as "Cassandras" is quite apt.

Logged

"You have enemies? Good. That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

Not sure why JDN delights in citing this blog and implying that it is somehow "conservative." It's run by Charles Johnson, who has publicly distanced himself from the "American right."

Per Wikipedia:

On November 30, 2009, Johnson blogged that he was disassociating himself with "the right", claiming that "The American right wing has gone off the rails, into the bushes, and off the cliff. I won’t be going over the cliff with them." He has been heavily critical of conservatives and libertarians since then. (emphasis mine)

Logged

"You have enemies? Good. That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

Actually after I quoted the ADL and Little Green Footballs some time ago Crafty implied that he respected Little Green Footballs. Most people do.

But if you prefer, how about Ed Rollins? I presume his credentials are gold plated conservative?

"The harshest rebuke came not from any of Rep. Bachmann’s colleagues on the hill, but from her former campaign manager, Ed Rollins, who guided her to victory in the Iowa caucuses. Rollins called her charges “extreme and dishonest,” and expressed personal shock at Bachmann’s distortions.

Rollins went so further to say: “Having worked for Congressman Bachman’s campaign for President, I am fully aware that she sometimes has difficulty with her facts, but this is downright vicious and reaches the late Senator Joe McCarthy level.”

Or how about Marco Rubio? Or do you question his conservative credentials too?

He too publically spoke out against the accusations. “Everyone I talk to who has dealt with her, says she is a professional and hardworking and patriotic American who loves her country and in the service of her country is serving it.”

And the list of quality people goes on and on and on....

The one thing they all seem to agree upon is that Geller et al are garbage.

I'm curious; don't YOU objectivist1 have ANY quality sources? Or are they all found out back?

This digressed into just shoot the messenger. Posts of no substance. How about JDN you post your oponion and best sources and let Obj post his. Refute points of substance if you want, like a discussion, or a forum.

A legitimate question was asked, quite a long ways back in the thread, with no answer forthcoming.

This is a difficult subject. All good Americans believe in freedom of religion so naturally many of us have difficulty in articulating when a religion is not OK-- my favorite example being the human sacrificing Aztecs. Add in the pressures of political correctness and the disingenuous motivations of the Pravdas, and it is understandable that many politicians, even relatively bold ones, may figure this to be one fight where they don't want to be leading the charge. Add in the natural human desire for cranial-rectal interface ("If I can't see it or hear it, it isn't there) and well, , , , you have what we have. How else to explain that President Bush couldn't even name the enemy and instead named the war after a particular tactic often used by this enemy , , , as well as other enemies. Fertile soil indeed for conceptual confusion!

For those not familiar with the facts presented by worthy Cassandras (and not all are worthy) it can be easy to assume that simple bigotry is at work.

My thoughts on the conversation here: I think Obj. has made numerous posts which argue on the merits, whereas IMHO JDN tends to reason by compurgation.

Certainly Ed Rollins has served the conversative cause well as a political operative, but this particular subject is well outside his area of competence. It is understandable that he would tend to view Michelle Bachman via his own experiences with her-- and I sense his opinion to overlap with mine-- she is quite capable of cheap shots. She is also quite capable of taking principles stands that are not popular with the in-crowd of Washington and the Pravdas-- so for me her getting slammed does not rule out that she may be quite right.

Marco Rubio's creds are first rate with me, but I suspect that he is like I was a few years ago when I faced off, in friendly fashion, on another forum with someone who was rather like our GM-- quite full of relevant material that forced me to re-evaluate my thinking. I search for Truth and when the facts prove me wrong, I change my mind.

JDN, time to move beyond compurgation. Time to address the substance of the arguments.

Yes, this is a difficult subject, yet worthy of attention. But the post is called "Islam in America"; not "Bash all Muslims" through absurd lies and accusations. Why don't we try to post (I did)a few good things about Islam in America? Most of the millions if Muslims in America are law abiding good citizens. Rather than Muslims in America, it's our far right zealots who seem to be creating the murders and terror lately. Maybe we should start a new thread?

A lot can and has been learned on this forum: I have. However, recently Ojectivist1 has not been posting credible sources. I think nearly everyone (Objectivist1 excepted) think Geller is a true Wacko.So what happens is similar to if your neighborhood five year old said a Martian was hiding behind every tree, you really wouldn't pay much attention or give it any credibility. If the childkept it up, you would tell him to stop his absurd comments. Yet, if JPL here in Pasadena said the same thing, I would start to pay attention. Moreover, I would check further into it. It'sa matter of credibility. The same applies to economics. While I respect Doug's opinion, I respect him even more (even though I might not always agree) because he backs up his opinionwith very credible and respected sources. That is important.

Objectivist1 hasn't posted any arguments from a source that deserves attention more than that five year old child crying "The Martians are coming". In contrast, if you do read my respected references,they debunk the accusations. For example Objectivist1 implied that the Muslim Brotherhood was paying for Abedin's new million dollar apartment. But that's like the Martians are coming; reality,as I posted, is a Jewish man, a friend of the Clinton's, owns the house and is giving it to them either free or at a reduced rate. Further, everyone knows that these matters are carefully reviewed bygovernment. If I had to guess the disclosure form is over 50 pages long. Of course she notified her superiors of her pending move; given the FACTS, there was no problem.

That's the issue. Objectivist1 has no FACTS. His posts are just rumor, baseless accusations, and slime, etc. And most of his sources are vile and no bodies; individuals with no credibility. In contrast, I've tried to quote senior Republican individuals and sources. I suppose I could quote Democrats too, but that would be too easy to refute Objectivist1. No one, at least no one with any credibility believes that the accusations posted by Objectivist1 have any merit.

So just like the little child yelling, "The Martians are coming" I either ignore him or try to point him to reliable sources. But how can you argue with an ignorant little child if they truly are seeing Martians behind every tree?

"For example Objectivist1 implied that the Muslim Brotherhood was paying for Abedin's new million dollar apartment. But that's like the Martians are coming; reality, as I posted, is a Jewish man, a friend of the Clinton's, owns the house and is giving it to them either free or at a reduced rate. Further, everyone knows that these matters are carefully reviewed by government. If I had to guess the disclosure form is over 50 pages long. Of course she notified her superiors of her pending move; given the FACTS, there was no problem."

I posted here (on August 16, 2012 - Reply #531 in this thread) an article which raised questions regarding how Anthony Weiner and Huma Abedin can afford to pay the rent for their new $3.3 million Manhattan residence. It posited that the source of the funds might be the Muslim Brotherhood. The article goes on to list the reasons for this concern, which are several, and include Abedin's documented connections to Muslim Brotherhood front organizations. JDN chooses nevertheless to ignore the remainder of the article and all of these points, attempting an intellectual sleight-of-hand by pretending they don't exist, and then asserting:

"reality, as I posted, is a Jewish man, a friend of the Clinton's, owns the house and is giving it to them either free or at a reduced rate. Further, everyone knows that these matters are carefully reviewed by government. If I had to guess the disclosure form is over 50 pages long. Of course she notified her superiors of her pending move; given the FACTS, there was no problem." - JDN

Hmmmm - let's examine this assertion. JDN's "evidence" to support this claim as to how Weiner and Abedin can afford to live in the aforementioned apartment is contained in an article he linked to from the New York Press (an online publication). It is reproduced verbatim below:

Anthony Weiner and his wife, Huma Abedin moved into a $3.3 million Manhattan apartment on Park Avenue owned by a wealthy Democratic donor Jack Rosen, according to NY Post reports.

After leaving the congressional seat that earned Weiner $174,000 a year due to his notorious sexting scandal, the couple made the drastic upgrade from their 875-square foot two-bedroom condo in Forest Hills worth $430,000 to their new 2,210 square-foot, four-bedroom, 3.5-bathroom home.

Weiner is jobless and Abedin makes about $155,000 a year as a top aide to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton so many are surprised that the couple can afford the rent on the place located at 254 Park Avenue South at East 20th Street. Real-estate experts say that the couple pays at least $12,000 to $14,000 per month while a Democratic fund-raising source speculates to the NY Post that the couple may be living there gratis, as Rosen is a close friend of the Clintons. Rosen has given money into Bill and Hillary Clinton’s election campaigns for years, even flying the Clintons in his private plane. He has also contributed thousands of dollars to Weiner’s financial reserves.

Abedin’s job forces her to face restrictions on receiving gifts and must disclose any financial dealings so her decision-making is not swayed by private interests. But an official who knows the couple denies the notion that Rosen would try to affect Abedin who could then influence Clinton. (emphasis mine)

So - JDN asserts that I am ignoring reality by posting an article which explicitly states that A DEMOCRATIC FUND-RAISING SOURCE IS MERELY SPECULATING THAT THE COUPLE IS LIVING THERE RENT-FREE. To repeat - this doesn't even address the issue of Abedin's documented connections to Muslim Brotherhood front organizations and the obvious concern that this ought to raise.

JDN further fatuously states: "everyone knows that these matters are carefully reviewed by government." I dare say that few of the posters or readers of this forum share JDN's evident confidence that this administration's vetting process is sound. Exhibit A to the contrary might be Van Jones. I could cite several others, but it's rather late, and frankly I don't much relish wasting time rebutting frivolous arguments which seem to always boil down to ad hominem attacks, compurgation, refusal to acknowledge relevant evidence, and obfuscation.

« Last Edit: August 30, 2012, 01:11:48 AM by objectivist1 »

Logged

"You have enemies? Good. That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

I posted here (on August 16, 2012 - Reply #531 in this thread) an article which raised questions regarding how Anthony Weiner and Huma Abedin can afford to pay the rent for their new $3.3 million Manhattan residence. It posited that the source of the funds might be the Muslim Brotherhood. The article goes on to list the reasons for this concern, which are several, and include Abedin's documented connections to Muslim Brotherhood front organizations. JDN chooses nevertheless to ignore the remainder of the article and all of these points, attempting an intellectual sleight-of-hand by pretending they don't exist, and then asserting:

Objectivist1; you don't know when to pack your bag and fold them.

Never once Objectivist1 did your article tie Abedin identify ANY improper financial payment from the Muslim Brotherhood to either Abedin or Rosen nor did your post identify ANY wrongdoing by Abedin. The article and the implication was merely to smear Abedin, maligning a fine public servant because of her heritage and religion. Your truth is no closer than my neighborhood ignorant child yelling, "The Martians are coming.".

"reality, as I posted, is a Jewish man, a friend of the Clinton's, owns the house and is giving it to them either free or at a reduced rate. Further, everyone knows that these matters are carefully reviewed by government. If I had to guess the disclosure form is over 50 pages long. Of course she notified her superiors of her pending move; given the FACTS, there was no problem." - JDN

Hmmmm - let's examine this assertion. JDN's "evidence" to support this claim as to how Weiner and Abedin can afford to live in the aforementioned apartment is contained in an article he linked to from the New York Press (an online publication). It is reproduced verbatim below:

Anthony Weiner and his wife, Huma Abedin moved into a $3.3 million Manhattan apartment on Park Avenue owned by a wealthy Democratic donor Jack Rosen, according to NY Post reports.

After leaving the congressional seat that earned Weiner $174,000 a year due to his notorious sexting scandal, the couple made the drastic upgrade from their 875-square foot two-bedroom condo in Forest Hills worth $430,000 to their new 2,210 square-foot, four-bedroom, 3.5-bathroom home.

Weiner is jobless and Abedin makes about $155,000 a year as a top aide to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton so many are surprised that the couple can afford the rent on the place located at 254 Park Avenue South at East 20th Street. Real-estate experts say that the couple pays at least $12,000 to $14,000 per month while a Democratic fund-raising source speculates to the NY Post that the couple may be living there gratis, as Rosen is a close friend of the Clintons. Rosen has given money into Bill and Hillary Clinton’s election campaigns for years, even flying the Clintons in his private plane. He has also contributed thousands of dollars to Weiner’s financial reserves.

So NOW Objectivist1 are you saying that Mr. Jack Rosen, a close wealthy friend of Clinton (Abedin's boss and friend) and who is also a close friend of Israel (he's Chairman of The American Jewish Congress) is secretly taking payment from the Muslim Brotherhood? Or was the Muslim Brotherhood just a lie; a smear of Ms. Abedin? Or are you saying Mr. Rosen did this so he can influence the Clinton's directly? What are you saying Objectivist1? I can hear my neighborhood ignorant boy yelling Martians.

Abedin’s job forces her to face restrictions on receiving gifts and must disclose any financial dealings so her decision-making is not swayed by private interests. But an official who knows the couple denies the notion that Rosen would try to affect Abedin who could then influence Clinton. (emphasis mine)

So - JDN asserts that I am ignoring reality by posting an article which explicitly states that A DEMOCRATIC FUND-RAISING SOURCE IS MERELY SPECULATING THAT THE COUPLE IS LIVING THERE RENT-FREE. To repeat - this doesn't even address the issue of Abedin's documented connections to Muslim Brotherhood front organizations and the obvious concern that this ought to raise.

JDN further fatuously states: "everyone knows that these matters are carefully reviewed by government." I dare say that few of the posters or readers of this forum share JDN's evident confidence that this administration's vetting process is sound. Exhibit A to the contrary might be Van Jones. I could cite several others, but it's rather late, and frankly I don't much relish wasting time rebutting frivolous arguments which seem to always boil down to ad hominem attacks, compurgation, refusal to acknowledge relevant evidence, and obfuscation.

As for the vetting process, are you really suggesting that the State Department doesn't know about this apartment? This apartment that has been all over the press? Or that they don't know the incomeof Ms. Abedin and her husband? And do you doubt that they have provided full disclosure? Oh that's right, Objectivist1 still believes that the Muslim Brotherhood is providing the money forAbedin to live in this house. Truly, I hope you are not that ignorant Objectivist1. Or are you?

McCarthy was a dark time in our history. Like you Objectivist1 without FACTS, only rumors and smear, he maligned innocent people. That's wrong.

I get that both theories can't be true, but why is it irresponsible to mention alternative explanations and why is it scurrilous to wonder how the hell a woman with such relationships in her background got the security clearance to sit at the elbow of the Sec. of State?

Concerning confidence in the government's vetting processes, does the name Maj. Nisan of Fort Hood fame ring a bell?

I get that both theories can't be true, but why is it irresponsible to mention alternative explanations and why is it scurrilous to wonder how the hell a woman with such relationships in her background got the security clearance to sit at the elbow of the Sec. of State?

Concerning confidence in the government's vetting processes, does the name Maj. Nisan of Fort Hood fame ring a bell?

Crafty, I am NOT saying the government's vetting process is full proof. Maj. Nisan does ring a bell. HOWEVER, given Ms. Abedin's position, her visibility compared to Maj. Nisan, I think there IS a huge difference.Nor has Ms. Abedin hid her move to a new apartment; it's all over the newspapers. Surely you are not implying that the vetting process didn't include a inquiry as to how she is paying for this place?

Yes, both theories cannot be true, but my point is that there is absolutely NO evidence that the Muslim Brotherhood has given money to pay for Ms. Abedin's new apartment. That is just smear. Whether Mr. Rosen is helping out I don't know to what extent. But given the situation and facts, Mr. Rosen does own the apartment and he is a friend of the Clinton's, therefore he is likely to be one one helping Ms. Abedin. Odd, Ms. Abedin is accused by Ojectivist1 for taking money from the Muslim Brotherhood (being disloyal) to pay for her new apartment, isn't it ironic that rather, it is probable that she is the beneficiary of Mr. Rosen, the Chairman of the American Jewish Congress! Maybe next Objectivist1 will attack Ms. Abedin and say she is a secret Israeli spy?

In just a few days, the Democratic National Convention “Kick off events”week will include its first ever “Jumah (gathering) at the DNC” – three Islam-centered events beginning with a Friday prayer and sermon, an evening Islamic banquet and an all day Islamic festival.

Many of the individuals scheduled to speak during the DNC week have extremely spurious backgrounds, including support for Al Qaeda and the U.S. State Department designated terrorist organization, HAMAS. Brooklyn-based Imam Siraj Wahhaj will headline the Muslim portion of the convention.

This is part two of an in-depth study of a man who will have the ear of thousands planning to attend the DNC Convention, thanks to Debbie Wasserman Schultz’ DNC. [To see Part I, click here]

Wahhaj Supports Islamic Extremism in Sudan

Hassan Al-Turabi was the leader of the National Islamic Front (NIF) political party in Sudan In the 1980’s. It was then that shari’ah law was implemented nationwide to Muslim and non-Muslim people alike. The criminal code was changed to include such barbaric punishments as cross amputation (cutting off the left hand and right foot), stoning, flogging, and death sentences for apostasy and blasphemy. The prominent Islam reformer, Mahmoud Mohammed Taha (“Taha”) was executed in 1981 for apostasy. [ii] Siraj Wahhaj supports Al-Turabi’s draconian shari’ah as it was enforced. In one sermon at his mosque, Wahhaj proclaimed “I would cut off the hands of my own daughter (if she stole) because Allah stands for Justice.” [iii]

Sudan became a safe-haven for terrorists i.e. Osama Bin Laden and HAMAS, under Al- Turabi, And in 1993, after the World Trade Center bombing, Sudan was named by the U.S. State Department as a state sponsor of terror. [iv]

Siraj Wahhaj made these statements at the time Sudan was listed as a state sponsor of terror:

May Allah bless Sudan…these are people who want to establish the Shari’ah, establish Quran, and Sunnah, they want to establish the religion and therefore hated by the government of the U.S.A…I’m not going to make you comfortable because our book, the book we believe in, is not Dale Carnegie’s, How to Win Friends and Influence People; But it’s the Quran.

Wahhaj Joins ISNA in Support for HAMAS and the National Islamic Front (NIF)

The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) calls itself the largest Islamic organization in the U.S.. The leaders of two terror groups Sami Al-Arian – Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), and Mousa Abu Marzook- HAMAS “helped establish” ISNA in 1981.[v]

Wahhaj became a member of the ISNA Advisory Council in 1987. 10 years later, HAMAS leader, Mousa Abu Marzook who had been deported from Jordan for his terror related activities[vi], wrote a thank you to many organizations in The Washington Report Middle East Affairs (WRMEA) for their support of him.. One of the organizations he thanked was ISNA. It was at that time, Wahhaj was ISNA Vice President, having been named to that position the same year, in 1997. [vii]

In the Spring 2001 edition of the ISNA publication, Islamic Horizons, the Sudanese leader Hassan Al Turabi, of the NIF, stated: “I do not think that it is only a dream, but there is a possibility not only for America to be Islamized, but also in fact to develop as the role model of Islam.” [viii] This ISNA article was published while Sudan was listed as a state sponsor of terror.

When asked, Siraj Wahhaj refuses to condemn HAMAS. [ix]

Siraj Wahhaj and CAIR

Not only were Marzook and Al-Arian co-founders of ISNA, they were also co-founders of an Islamist organization, which evolved into the Council for American- Islamic Relations (CAIR). Marzook and Al-Arian co-founded the precursor to the Council for American Islamic Relations, a U.S. front group for HAMAS.

Article Eight of the 1988 HAMAS Charter proclaims:

“Allah is its goal; the Prophet is its model, the Quran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.”

Omar Ahmed, who co-founded the Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR), was caught just a few years after CAIR’s incorporation publicly stating similar goals:

Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Quran . . . should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth. [xi]

Siraj Wahhaj has been on CAIR’s Advisory Board, [xii] and for over the last decade has been the designated fundraiser at many CAIR fundraiser banquets. Wahhaj has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for CAIR. [xiii] At a recent CAIR San Francisco fundraiser, where Siraj Wahhaj was listed as fundraiser, CAIR’s guest speakers included the attorney for Sami Al-Arian, Linda Moreno.[xiv]

Wahhaj and the North American Islamic Trust

One subsidiary of ISNA is the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT). NAIT was the first U.S. Islamic financial trust. [xv]

ISNA and NAIT are included in “A list of our organizations and the organizations of our friends” of the Muslim Brotherhood in a 1991 memorandum[xvi] written by Mohamed Akram, a top HAMAS Operative living in the United States at that time. The document is dated May 22, 1991. Siraj Wahhaj’s own bio says he was on NAIT’s Board of Advisors from 1989-1993, which puts his service with NAIT and ISNA squarely during the same period this document was written. This Muslim Brotherhood memorandum reads much like Wahhaj’s sermons and lectures:

The Ikhwan [Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions. [xvii]

Siraj Wahhaj Supports Convicted Cop Killer, Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin

Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin (formerly known as H. Rap Brown), an African-American convert to Islam, is a former Black Panther with a forty year history of violence who’s been listed twice on the FBI’s “Ten Most Wanted Fugitives” list. [xviii] Al-Amin once said, “I say violence is necessary. It is as American as cherry pie.”[xix] Al-Amin was arrested for murdering one deputy sheriff and injuring another in 2000. The shooting was not racially motivated as both deputies were Black. Al-Amin murdered the Deputy Sheriff In cold blood– walking over to the already injured deputy and shot the man three more times. [xx]

Siraj Wahhaj founded Muslim Alliance of North America (MANA) in 2001 to defend Al-Amin. [xxi] On MANA’s website, Al Amin is listed as an Islamic scholar. The site even publishes an article by Al Amin directed to Muslim clerics, titled, “Advice for Imams.” In 2004, the Georgia court denied Al-Amin’s appeal, “Al-Amin’s guilt was overwhelmingly established through the eyewitness identification by [the] Deputies, as well … as by the vast amount of physical evidence tying defendant to the crimes.” [xxii]

Al-Amin was convicted in 2002 and sentenced to life imprisonment.

The DNC is celebrating a man who supported a cop-killer!

Siraj Wahhaj’s Support for Hizb ut-Tahrir

The Hizb ut-Tahrir international movement which campaigns for the establishment of a global Islamic state, or Caliphate (Khalifah) governed by Islamic (shari’ah) law. Although, legally permitted inside the United States, Hizb ut-Tahrir has been described as a “conveyor belt” of terror. [xxiii] Hizb ut-Tahrir former members include Al- Qaeda architect of 9/11 , Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and the former leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi. On a Hizb ut-Tahrir draft Islamic constitution, it advocated for separate and distinct laws for non-Muslims based on Islamic doctrine, death for apostasy, and waging jihad as a top priority for the government. [xxiv]

Siraj Wahhaj has been a long time supporter of Hizb ut-Tahrir. In 1994, he attended a conference in London. During the conference, the Islamists called for jihad, attacked democracy as a system of government, and declared that “the Islamic system is the only alternative for mankind.” [xxv] Less than a week later, back in the U.S., Wahhaj celebrated the Hizb ut-Tahrir as “scholarly brothers, knowledgeable brothers in the din” (understanding that Islam is not just a religion, but a complete way of life) with “good insight.” Wahhaj specifically stated that the group “is right in their pushing for the Khilafah (Caliphate).” [xxvi]

Conclusion

Given the massive documentation, going back decades, of his support for radicalism, violence, cop-killing, the worst Islamic extremism, and the overthrow of the Constitution, as well as his use of positions of leadership to pursue these goals, it is time to demand an explanation from the DNC about their embrace of Siraj Wahhaj.

My Los Angeles Times Op-Ed article on Islamophobia and the Anders Behring Breivik verdict sparked a lively debate. And that's a good thing. Conversations like this belong in the pages of prominent newspapers, not on the blogs of hate group leaders.

Shapiro falsely asserts that I prescribed censorship to combat a growing discourse of hate. Instead, what I advocated was that reasonable voices within the population should publicly shame bigots and marginalize their harmful messages so that there is a well-considered and persuasive counterpoint that drowns out their hate. If thoughtful people more frequently and more forcefully speak out against individuals who provided Breivik with his ideological underpinnings, one day, hopefully, they will be treated with the same derision as the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazi groups.

Shapiro belittles my claim that right-wing terrorism is of great concern. He psychoanalyzes domestic terrorists like McVeigh and Koresh as "obsessed" or "paranoid," discounting their violence as somehow less concerning than that carried out by Muslim terrorists, whose violence he views as a normal part of their ideological makeup. For those predisposed to judge Islam in this light, if violence is committed by a Christian or someone of another preferred identity, then he is an aberrant mental case, but if it is performed by a Muslim, then that is just how those people are.

This week's news of a plot by four Georgia-based members of the U.S. military to blow up several bases and other targets around the country and assassinate President Obama apparently did not calculate in his logic. Though some may believe otherwise, it's not the Muslim Brotherhood that's planning attacks or infiltrating America's corridors of power.

Just as many peace-loving Muslim imams condemn un-Islamic extremism and violence, it is incumbent on reasonable Americans to condemn the hateful extremism of our own fellow citizens. Nothing good can come from this mindless anti-Muslim rhetoric. Those who listen to it regularly and digest it will become violent.

I choose to stand on the side of pluralism and tolerance rather than bandy about prejudice and hate.

Before reading Nathan Lean's call for the restriction of the freedom of speech of critics of jihad and Islamic supremacism in the Los Angeles Times, it is illuminating to bear a few things in mind.

First: Nathan Lean, the editor-in-chief of Aslan Media, is a thug who has sent me numerous veiled threats. For security reasons, I maintain several offices and mailboxes in different parts of the country, and don't actually live near any of them or check the mail in them myself. Nathan Lean got hold of one of the addresses, and several months ago tweeted me, in a complete non-sequitur, the name of the state it is in. A week later, he sent me another tweet including the name of the city where one of these mailboxes is located. Four months after that, he sent me an email calling me a "dumb fuck" and adding "But, having a look at this, I kind of pity you," which was followed by a link containing a photo of a woman in the same city. The woman has the same surname as mine; apparently Lean thought she was my wife.

Now, the purpose of these tweets and emails is unmistakable: Nathan Lean was signaling to me that he thought he knew my whereabouts (and that of my family), despite my attempts to conceal them. And why would he want me to think that he knew where I was? So that I would be frightened into silence, afraid that one of his many violence-inclined allies might do me in if I continued to speak out for freedom and human rights. I therefore duly forwarded all these communications to the FBI, and they've informed me that they're keeping on eye on Nathan Lean.

Yet this gutter thug still remains in the employ of Islamic supremacist hate propagandist Reza Aslan, and is published in the Los Angeles Times, which tells you a great deal about Reza Aslan and the Los Angeles Times.

Second, by publishing this thug's screed calling for restriction of the freedom of speech, the Los Angeles Times is cutting its own throat. For my opinions are certainly politically incorrect today, but if Lean succeeds in getting them criminalized, his patrons at the LA Times might find one day that they, too, hold an opinion unacceptable to those in power, but the precedent to silence them will already have been set, with their willing help.

"Anders Behring Breivik: Norway's sane killer," by Nathan Lean in the Los Angeles Times, August 26 (thanks to all who sent this in):

...The Islamophobia that led Breivik to his ruinous binge, for example, came from his digestion of the writings of several anti-Muslim activists, including bloggers Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller, who head the group Stop the Islamization of America. Breivik mentioned them in his 1,500-page manifesto, posted online.Nathan Lean must get up every morning and thank Allah for Anders Behring Breivik; after all, where would he be without him? In any case, as long as Lean keeps repeating his libel, I will keep telling the truth: while he'd like you to believe that Breivik's "manifesto" is just Geller and me through and through, actually Breivik cited many, many people, including Barack Obama, John F. Kennedy, and Thomas Jefferson -- who are just three of the many who are never blamed for his murders. Also swept under the rug is the fact that whether he is sane or not, Breivik's manifesto is actually quite ideologically incoherent -- so far was he from being a doctrinaire counter-jihadist that he wanted to aid Hamas and ally with jihad groups. I am no more responsible for Breivik than the Beatles are for Charles Manson.

Indeed, the whole attempt to smear Pamela Geller and me with Breivik's murders rests on several leaps of illogic and unstated assumptions. Even if Breivik's views really were exactly the same as ours, as Lean wants you to think, would the Los Angeles Times or Nathan Lean (well, maybe he would) really stand behind the idea that if someone commits violence in the name of an idea, that idea is thereby discredited and must be driven out of the public discourse? In that case, precious few ideas would be left, since people at one time or another have committed violence in the name of virtually every cause under the sun.

In any case, if ideas that were deemed to lead to violence really were silenced, the proponents of a supposedly peaceful Islam that Nathan Lean is so anxious to protect and defend would be silenced as well. After all, Lean admits below that Geller and I denounced Breivik's violence. But that is not enough for him: the whole thrust of his piece here is the claim that what we say and do inspires other people to do violence. Now, that is not in the slightest degree true of what Pamela Geller and I say and do, but it is certainly true of the many, many imams worldwide who openly teach that Muslims should wage war against unbelievers, and also true of those who don't teach violence openly, but do teach hatred and contempt of those outside the accepted circle (which, incidentally, Nathan Lean teaches as well). And if we denounce violence but must nevertheless be silenced, then so also must peaceful Muslims such as Nathan Lean's boss Reza Aslan, who supposedly denounces Islamic violence but has written favorably many times about the violent jihad terror groups Hamas and Hizballah.

The pair has agitated some of the country's nastiest displays of prejudice. Their bus advertisements equating the Palestinian cause with jihad created a stir in New York and San Francisco, and they fanned the flames of the uproar over the Park51 Islamic Community Center in 2010.This one made me laugh: Pamela Geller and I are "equating the Palestinian cause with jihad"! No one ever thought to do it before we did! Apparently Nathan Lean hopes his hapless Times readers know nothing about Ahlam Tamimi, who praised Allah for the murders of Israelis in a pizza parlor (murders in which she participated), or about the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood has called for jihad to liberate "Palestine,"; or about Jordanian Muslim cleric Riyadh al-Bustanji, who said recently: "I have brought my daughter to Gaza, so that she can learn from the women of Gaza how to bring up her children on Jihad, martyrdom-seeking, and the love of Palestine," or thousands of other Muslims worldwide who have called the Israel/"Palestinian" conflict a jihad. No! It is all just a nasty display of prejudice by Geller and Spencer!

Damningly, they see their mission as Breivik saw his: They call themselves "freedom fighters" on a valorous journey to save the world from Muslims.Like his boss Reza Aslan, Nathan Lean can't even be honest or decent enough to characterize his foes' views accurately. In reality, we are not trying to "save the world from Muslims," but from a radically repressive, supremacist political ideology that denies the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all people before the law. If Muslims sincerely renounce these aspects of Islamic law and work against their spread, they are welcome to join us, as I have said repeatedly throughout my public work.

But when it was publicized that the Norway killer mentioned Spencer and Geller in his writings, they cried foul. "Clearly this individual is insane," Spencer wrote on his blog. After Breivik's initial psychological evaluation Geller expressed relief, writing, that Breivik was "declared certifiably insane, which was evident by his actions and his ten-years-in-the-making manifesto."The magnitude of Breivik's butchery was apparently sufficient evidence of his psychosis. No normal person, in Geller and Spencer's view, would ever do such a thing. But only if that person is not a Muslim. When Muslims engage in violence, they are represented by Islamophobes as ordinary believers acting in a way that aligns with tenets of their faith, not fringe lunatics whose delusional religious interpretations lead them to a monstrous end. Though Spencer and Geller denounced Breivik's violence, they never rejected his anti-Muslim ideas. And that is a problem.

Here again, Lean ignores the extremely inconvenient fact that when Muslims engage in violence, they repeatedly justify that violence by reference to mainstream Muslim understandings of Islamic texts and teachings, and peaceful Muslims have not mounted any large-scale movement to oppose them or interpret those texts and teachings in a different way. He pretends instead that it is we who have equated Islam with violence. A few thousand imams preaching from the Qur'an and Sunnah would beg to differ.

The Norwegian court's verdict, which means that Breivik will spend at least 21 years behind bars (and probably much more), underscores the need for society to address those who promote hatred and jabber about the evils of multiculturalism and the looming clash of civilizations. It proves that amplified racism, which carves society into fragments and pits them against one another, has real consequences and reaches the minds of rational thinkers who absorb such narratives and take them to their logical conclusions.Trying to wish away intolerance and bigotry may be convenient but it is costly. During Breivik's trial, a right-wing extremist testified that he knew of nearly 100 other people who share the killer's views and supported his massacre....

The discourse of hate must be stopped before it affects other extremists quietly waiting for an opportunity to be lauded as heroes.

Here we come to the heart of Lean's argument: he wants "society" to take action against those who stand for freedom and human rights against jihad, Sharia and Islamic supremacism, for we "must be stopped." This is a veiled but clear call for restrictions on our freedom of speech -- as clear as his threats against me. Lean, like the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), wants speech critical of Islam to be criminalized. And the Los Angeles Times, to its everlasting discredit, publishes this.

That fact is the worst part of Lean's article: that he is given ready entree to mainstream media outlets to publish his hateful libels and calls for the restriction of our Constitutional rights, but we are not allowed any space for rebuttal of his false charges. When the Breivik libel first began appearing, Pamela Geller and I submitted a rebuttal op-ed to the chief places that had smeared us: the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the rest. None even had the courtesy to answer. But this enabler of Islamic supremacist oppression and hatred has easy access to the largest forums for influencing public opinion.

Nonetheless, because he stands for nothing but lies and hatred, Nathan Lean's cynical attempt to monetize the hysteria about "Islamophobia" is doomed to fail. If, however, he somehow does succeed in silencing those who are defending the freedom of speech and other basic human rights, his children and his children's children, having endured the devastation that his Islamic supremacist masters have wrought upon the West, will rise up and curse his name.

I'd rather fail in defending freedom than succeed with a legacy like that.

Posted by Robert on August 26, 2012

Logged

"You have enemies? Good. That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

Actually Crafty, Robert Spencer's Website jihadwatch.org primary guest/alternative spokesperson is Pam Geller; it's like two peas in a pod. Objectivist1 himself seems to alternate between Spencer/Geller. I guess it's easier for him to go to the same website.

That said, I agree, Robert Spencer seems more "reasonable" than Geller who is a complete Wacko. I don't ignore Spencer, but I do take him with a grain of salt. He's hardly a respected scholar on the matter.

Robert Spencer does not possess any scholarly credentials. He doesn't have any rudimentary academic education in the field in which one is claiming scholarship. First year students in Ph.D. programs have published far more academic articles than Robert Spencer ever has. Spencer has published no such articles, contenting himself with reproducing work in non-academic and populist publications. Spencer does not even possess a Master’s Degree in anything related to Islam, let alone a Ph.D. and post-doctoral fellowship but calls himself a scholar and expert.

Organizers at the Bureau of Indigenous Muslim Affairs anticipated crowds at yesterday's "Jumah at the DNC" event in Charlotte, North Carolina would reach 20,000. Instead, only 300 Muslims showed up for the open air prayer ceremony. The event had been listed on the schedule of events that were part of the officially sanctioned DNC/Charlotte in 2012 Host Committee's website. But less than 24 hours before "Jumah at the DNC" was held, nervous officials at the Host Committee quietly removed it from the list of officially sanctioned DNC pre-convention events.As Jim Hoft reported at TownHall.com last night:[T]he Jumah event was removed from the DNC web site calendar, and there is no reference at all to the event. A supporter noted in an e-mail, “It was still there 5.30 PM on 8/30/2012 and at 6.30 PM it was gone! I looked everywhere but it’s not listed anymore.”Readers can see the cleaned up version of the scrubbed August 31 schedule of events here.Officials at the Host Commitee confirmed that the event was removed. As NBC reported late yesterday:"This event, like many others on the page, was user generated," a senior Host Committee official told NBC News on Friday. "Upon further review, and because speakers for the event and statements and positions from event organizers were not appropriate and relevant to the Host Committee, Charlotte in 2012 has decided to remove the event from our events calendar."One of the event organizers, radical Islamist Imam Jibril Hough, bristled at the Host Committee's actions:"This is about caving in to fear and ignorance," said Hough.The radical Islamist nature of the BIMA organization was highlighted by the topics addressed at yesterday's "Jumah at the DNC" --Islamophobia and opposition to Anti-Sharia laws. The featured speakers were also controversial:-- Jibril Hough, who claims Muslims lived in the Americas before the arrival of Columbus in 1492. Hough is listed as a "spokesman" for BIMA, and his views are reflected in the "indigenous Muslims" claim included in the group's title.--Retired Army Muslim Chaplain, Captain James Yee, who was charged with sedition but not prosecuted since to do so would have revealed national security secrets.-- Imam Siraj Wahhaj, an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. It was a disappointing turn of events for the event's sponsor, the Bureau of Indigenous Muslim Affairs, an obscure radical Islamist organization. In an exclusive interview with Breitbart News on Tuesday, Ibrahim Jaaber, son of BIMA Executive Director Muhammad Jaaber, said that the DNC "reached out" to the Muslim organization and invited it to hold the two hour prayer service as one of the officially sanctioned pre-convention events that began yesterday. In addition to the "Jumah at the DNC" event yesterday afternoon, BIMA was scheduled to host the DNC/Charlotte in 2012 Host Committee officially sanctioned "Islamic Regal Dinner" last night. But with the convention scheduled to kick off on Monday, the negative publicity surrounding the radical Islamist speaking and organizing "Jumah at the DNC" became too much for the Host Committee to tolerate, and both the "Jumah at the DNC" and "Islamic Regal Dinner" events officially disappeared from the organization's website late Thursday.The Host Committee is described on its website as "a non-profit, non-partisan organization established by the city of Charlotte to fulfill obligations of the master contract with the Democratic National Convention Committee." It is run by three Democratic Party stalwarts and a politically ambitious CEO based in Charlotte. North Carolina Governor Beverly Perdue and North Carolina Senator Kay Hagan serve as honorary co-chairs, and Charlotte Mayor Anthony Foxx and Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers serve as co-chairs. Rogers has contributed to Senate candidates of both parties, but most recently donated $30,000 to the Democratic National Committee in 2010, according to Federal Election Commission records. Native Americans, who can properly claim to be "indigenous" to the United States, were upset that prior to the scrubbing of the event from the DNC/Charlotte in 2012 website, the Democratic Party had apparently recognized the Orwellian interpretation of "indigenous" set forward by BIMA.As Miki Booth wrote last week:Native Americans are very angry to learn that Muslims in the United States of America are being touted as “indigenous”, a complete falsehood. The fact is, American Indians are the indigenous people of North America, as Hawai’ians are to Hawai’i and the Aborigine to Australia. Organizations like BIMA marginalize native Americans in favor of Muslims, and Indians are not pleased. Speaking with many tribal friends and associates here in northeast Oklahoma, it is clear that the support Obama received from native American Democrats in 2008 is waning. The controversy surrounding the initial Democrats' embrace of BIMA's incorrect use of the term "indigenous" to describe American born Muslims is expected to further diminish the party's standing among Native Americans. The Democratic Party is already on the defensive with Native Americans because its Massachusetts Senate nominee, Elizabeth Warren, has come under heavy criticism for falsely claiming to have Native American ancestry.The BIMA website says the organization is "a non profit organization seeking status with the United Nations as a non governmental organization (NGO). BIMA was founded in 1992 by the late Hajj Heshaam Jaaber. The objective of BIMA is to provide social and economic development to indigenous Muslims in the United States of America." Heshaam Jaaber was Executive Director Muhammad Jaaber's father and Ibrahim Jaaber's grandfather. Ibrahim Jaaber is a 2007 graduate of the University of Pennsylvania, where he was an All-Ivy League basketball player. He told Breitbart News that his role in his father's BIMA organization is to provide media management services. Two months ago he purchased the "muslimbureau.com" domain name which BIMA uses for its website. Prior to that time, BIMA had no web presence.It remains unclear if BIMA is an actual organization or a recently established "shell corporation" opportunistically set up by a small group of radical Islamists to take advantage of the Democratic Party's ideological desire to appeal to politically correct diversity. Indeed, other than spokesman Hough, the entirety of the BIMA organization seems to be limited to Executive Director Muhammad Jaaber and his two sons. One son, Yusuf, is listed as the organization's press contact. Ibrahim, the second son who owns the organization's domain name and describes his role in the organization as a person responsible for media management, is involved with BIMA on a part time basis. Since his graduation from Penn, he has played basketball professionally in Bulgaria and Italy. He has had several NBA tryouts, including one with the Houston Rockets in 2011, and told Breitbart News he is hoping for a tryout this coming season with either the Indiana Pacers or the San Antonio Spurs. Some time after 2007, he became a citizen of Bulgaria, which allows him to play basketball on the Bulgarian national team. He was born in Elizabeth, New Jersey, and maintains his American citizenship as well.

Logged

"You have enemies? Good. That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

[Editor's note: The article below is written by Eric Allen Bell, a filmmaker who was recently banned from blogging at the “Daily Kos” because he wrote three articles that ran afoul of the mindset there, specifically naming “Loonwatch.com” as a “terrorist spin control network.” Don't miss Eric Bell on Frontpage's television program, The Glazov Gang. Visit his Facebook page: http://www.Facebook.com/EricAllenBell.]

I write this mainly for the benefit of so many of my Liberal friends. I know you have good hearts, but have been badly deceived by your peers and leaders when it comes to the threat of Jihad, and the character of those few brave individuals, who have had the courage to risk everything, to stand up for liberty and human rights…

BACKGROUND:

In the summer of 2010 I was invited to write an article for Michael Moore. I was in production on a documentary I was calling “Not Welcome” regarding the backlash against construction of a 53,000 square foot mega mosque in the middle of the American Bible Belt. His endorsement gave me a huge boost with the Hollywood crowd. Having worked in the entertainment industry for years, this was not my first film, but it was to be my first documentary. So when I went on to write a few more articles for MichaelMoore.com the wheels were greased for me to get into a room with the right people, and secure the finishing funds I needed to complete post production. And if there is one thing Hollywood loves (almost as much as congratulating itself), it’s the story of an innocent minority group being wrongly persecuted, preferably in the South, especially if the antagonist happens to be the Religious Right. And as my editor and I assembled the first 25 minutes, of the 300 hours of footage shot, this film promised to deliver just that. “Wow, I really wasn’t expecting this. I would like to thank the members of the Academy, Michael Moore and the Prophet Mohammed for making all of this possible…”

But then the winds changed direction. It seems that fate had issued a Fatwa against my perfect plan. The Arab Spring sprang into action and ruined everything, as it degenerated disappointingly into the Islamist Winter. It was as if I had been slapped upside the head by reality, thus knocking off my blinders and causing me to ask a lot of inconvenient questions. I was left wondering if there was perhaps more to the story of so-called “revolution” than what had been portrayed on Al Jazeera and “Democracy Now with Amy Goodman”. You can read more about this in an article I wrote for Front Page Magazine here: “The High Price of Telling the Truth About Islam”.

I took a second and more critical look inside Islamic scripture, comparing and contrasting the countless acts of Islamic terrorism, with specific commands to carry out these violent and barbaric attacks on innocent infidels as ordered in the Koran, the Hadith, and the Sunnah. And after much difficult soul searching I had realized I was making more than just a documentary. I was making a terrible mistake. So I went back to my backers and told them how I had changed the outline of the documentary, to include a critical examination of the violent dimension that informed so much of the Islamic world today, and throughout history, and how desperately this story needed to be told, and I consequently lost the backing to my film.

As a writer who had written over a hundred articles for The Daily Kos, a liberal blog which receives about a million visitors a day, I wrote 3 articles outlining what I had learned about Islam, it’s execution of homosexuals and how hundreds of millions of women around the world were living under Islamic gender apartheid. I called attention to this as a human rights issue, human rights being in theory a big concern among Liberal audiences. The warm reception that followed included being labeled a “bigot” a “right winger” and an “Islamophobe” in the hundreds of subsequent reader comments, demanding that my “hate speech” be banned. And after that the Islamophobia watchdog site, Loonwatch.com created a link for readers to write directly to the editors of DKOS, demanding my voice be silenced. And I was immediately banned from ever writing for The Daily Kos.

In the weeks that passed I received many “goodbye” texts and emails from friends letting me know that we were no longer friends. I saw my name get smeared in print – lies, misquotes, distortions, character assassination. Loonwatch.com named me the “Loon At Large”

(UPDATE: Since appearing on the Michael Coren show and telling my story about how Loonwatch put my name out on the street in the Islamic world, Loonwatch has since pulled that article from their site. Thank you very much Michael Coren!).

My friend count on Facebook took a hit. My blog, which has had over 23 million visitors and usually receives at least a million visitors per month, got hacked over and over for weeks before my traffic rebounded. And, many of my subscribers left the site, telling me that I was “spreading intolerance and ignorance”. On donations and ad revenue I took a massive financial hit. For so many who had known me for so long, I had become nothing more than an “intolerant hate monger”

PAMELA GELLER:

In the process of defending myself from all of these accusations, in a desperate attempt to distance myself from those names that had become synonymous with “Islamophobia” at least in my circle, I made critical remarks about Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller – comments meant to distinguish myself from the real “hate mongers” but comments that turned out to be uninformed and just simply just not true. I thought they were true at the time. But having only recently sipped from the well of knowledge, I had not yet flushed all of the Kool Aid out of my system.

For example, in a Daily Kos piece (before my excommunication for blasphemy) I wrongly lumped Pamela Geller in with Pastor Terry Jones, a religious zealot who preaches burning the Koran. A simple YouTube search will yield no shortage of remarks made by Geller, stating she opposes the burning of books, all books, and that furthermore she is not anti-Muslim, does not advocate persecution or hatred of Muslims, and even goes so far as to point out that it is in fact Muslims themselves, who are the biggest victims of Islamic violence. The number of times she has spoken out for the hundreds of millions of Muslim women, who suffer under gender apartheid alone, is evidence that Pamela Geller is not a hate monger, but rather a fearless advocate for human rights – including the rights of Muslims.

It is amazing, the human capacity for seeing only what we want to see. And it is especially humbling, I can tell you, when one identifies that unattractive quality within oneself. But the freedom that comes with trading in your cozy conclusions for difficult questions is well worth the cost. Everything is up for grabs. You evolve.

In taking the time to really get to know who Pamela Geller is and what she has done to earn this sensational media status, as some sort of evil hate monger, this intolerant fanatic who opposes religious freedom, I finally did some long overdue research of my own. And soon after simply scratching the surface, it was immediately clear that the bold stance Pamela Geller took publicly against the Ground Zero Mosque was absolutely right. Spot on, in fact damned near clairvoyant.

This shameless shrine, this 13 story Islamic gloating tower was to be financed with $100 million from the “Cordoba Initiative” an organization with very questionable ties to Jihadi interests – to be ran by Imam Raouf and promoted by his wife Daisy Khan (pronounced “Con”).

Cordoba, by the way was at one time the capital of an Islamic Caliphate and the city where Muslims had converted a Cordoba church into the third largest mosque in the world – an inconvenient truth that those of us in the Liberal world were told was simply misunderstood. But when the spin doctors at CAIR failed to convince the skeptics, this mysterious $100 million Islamic fund rebranded the name of the victory mosque, to simply “Park 51”. It kind of sounds like an exclusive night club from the seventies, except without the liquor or cocaine, and where the women must throw a sheet over their heads and keep their mouths shut.

No matter how the Cordoba Initiative tried to spin this story, Pamela Geller kept on insisting this was a mosque. According to press releases parroted by left leaning media outlets, “Park 51” was more like a YMCA, where old people could play bingo or shuffle board or whatever they do. There would be Mommy and Me classes and the center just happened to have a prayer room on the top two floors for Muslims to pray. (also known as a mosque). Never mind that this mosque would overlook the site of the collapsed World Trade Center, where thousands of innocent people lost their lives after Islamic terrorists struck on 9/11. And never mind that construction of a mosque this close to Ground Zero was perfectly consistent with 1,400 years of Islamic conquest. This was to be a victory mosque the whole family could enjoy. And if you don’t like it, then you’re a racist and a bigot and a right wing Islamophobe. Did I mention that the new facility was designed to “bring the whole community together”?

As an advocate for cultural sensitivity for the American people (we could use more of those), Pamela Geller gave numerous television interviews. She was hammered and grilled mercilessly as an intolerant fanatic by a highly biased media, but she did not back down. She kept her cool and she stuck to the facts. For instance, fragments of a hijacked airliner had reportedly landed on the Burlington Coat Factory (the piece of Ground Zero real estate which was swooped up using questionable sources, to become the Victory Mosque). She asserted that the proposed site was in fact sacred ground, a war memorial, and not at all an appropriate place to build a $100 million “shrine to the very ideology that inspired the attacks of 9/11”.

I used to think that this was too broad a statement to make. I used to think that connecting Islam to 9/11 was somehow unfair. I used to not think, and think that I was thinking. And it seems for many of us Gen X’ers “educated” in government run schools, this type of not thinking was how we were taught to think. And the institutions of “education” told us that this type of not thinking was called “tolerance”. Applied evenly, one could learn to tolerate Communism, Nazism or even the President of Iran. See Oliver Stone’s son and recent convert to Shia Islam as Exhibit “A”.

So why did Pamela Geller call Islam an “Ideology” and not a religion? Perhaps this was because Islam is only a small part religion. In large part Islam is a tyrannical political system, and very much a barbaric legal system (the Sharia) practiced by hundreds of millions of Muslims in Islamic countries around the world and growing. And all three components go together to form what is known as “Islam” the so-called “religion of peace”. And yet so many in the mainstream media twisted Ms. Geller’s words to make it sound as if she were a crackpot, who actually thought that a mosque was going to be built on the site of the actual Twin Towers, while ignoring her valid points, or else cutting her off before she could finish making a valid point. And this is what so many of us wanted to believe, what we needed to believe – because the alternative meant that maybe she was right, and this went against a culture that raised us to believe all belief systems are of equal value and must be respected equally because anything less was unfair.

A huge portion of American culture is dominated by a naïve and usually well-intentioned view – that one must always side with the perceived victim in any conflict. And terrorist-linked organizations such as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) have done a masterful job of manipulating this predisposition in painting a picture of Islam in America as the victim. Never mind the fact that Islam itself is perhaps the greatest victimizer in the world today. The perception that Islam is the underdog in America has allowed CAIR to bully and infiltrate the media, either by calling them out whenever they feel that Islam has been slighted or, more recently, creating an atmosphere where media outlets such as the New York Times are voluntarily censoring themselves.

For a religion that is so easily offended by the simplest slight, such as drawing a cartoon or burning a book, one would hope that a Muslim cleric with a hundred million dollars behind him could find another location – one that does not offend millions of Americans. And this was a point that Pamela Geller never backed down from, even though she knew that she could be risking her life.

ROBERT SPENCER:

There were two defining incidents that caused me to eventually do a full 180 on my views concerning Islam as a mostly peaceful religion with a few bad apples. The first one I have already mentioned in “The High Cost of Telling the Truth About Islam”. Briefly:

“I flew back to Nashville to shoot a conference on whether or not Islam was conducive with Democratic Values and on the way to my hotel room I learned that my cab driver was from Egypt. I asked him how he felt about the fall of Mubarak, a dictator worth over $70 billion dollars while so much of his country was living in poverty and he told me he was concerned. Concerned? Wasn’t this good news? The cab driver was a Coptic Christian and he told me that he feared for his family back home. “If the Muslims take control, and they will, it will be very dangerous for my parents and my sisters. I’m scared for them right now”. After that conversation, I started to pay more attention to the news coming from the Islamic world in the Middle East. Over the coming months I watched as the Muslim Brotherhood gained political power in Egypt. I saw that cab driver’s worst fears come true as Coptic Christians were attacked by Islamic mobs. I saw Tunisia institute Sharia, the brutal Islamic Law. After Libya fell, the Transitional Council also instituted Islamic Law. The nuclear armed Islamic government of Pakistan arrested and punished those who cooperated with the United States in killing Osama Bin Laden. A woman under the Islamic government of Afghanistan faced execution for the crime of being raped. Similar news stories emerged from Iran. A man who typed “there is no god” as his Facebook status in Indonesia, the largest Islamic country in the world, was arrested for blasphemy.”

Also, I read a book by Robert Spencer called “The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion”. I knew his reputation for being an “Islamophobe” as I had been a reader of Loonwatch.com for over a year – a site which is obsessed with Robert Spencer, and is aligned with another site called SpencerWatch.com – both of which go to great lengths to depict him as the worst human being in the world.

When I picked up “The Truth About Mohammed” I kept waiting for that moment when he would reveal himself to be the “Loon” they said he was and I could stop reading. But that moment never came. As it turns out, all of these horrible things I was reading about Mohammed could not possibly be “Islamophobic” because they were all coming directly from Islamic scripture. Everything he said was based on what Islamic sources, the Koran, the Hadith and the Sunnah, were saying about Mohammed. There was very little editorializing. Spencer was merely reporting in a very non-sensational way, what Muslims are taught about the life of their prophet.

I checked this out for myself. Not only did I want to disbelieve what I was reading, but I needed to disbelieve it. If what Robert Spencer was saying about Mohammed was true, then I had to rework my entire documentary, rethink my entire worldview, possibly lose backing (that hurt) and even have to go back and admit to my readers that I had it all wrong. I really, really wanted Robert Spencer to turn out to be a “Loon”. But he simply is not.

In fact, Robert Spencer is one of the only people out there telling the truth about Mohammed and successfully getting through to a significant number of people. And although I had seen him appear on news shows that I don’t like, being interviewed by people that I don’t agree with, there was absolutely nothing in his book that promoted his religion or promoted a partisan political point of view. He was simply stating the facts. And if I could detect any kind of agenda from this at all, any hint of this being in any way personal for him, it was pretty clear that his concerns had to do with protecting human rights.

From there I watched a documentary that Robert Spencer was featured prominently in (which I very highly recommend) called “Islam: What the West Needs to Know”. Again, I did my homework and it all checks out. From that point I watched nearly everything I could find on YouTube with Robert Spencer in it. Then I read “The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran”.

Since first sharing my change in perspective on Daily Kos and later on Front Page Magazine, I had the honor of speaking with Robert Spencer on a number of occasions. In fact it was he who reached out to me when my articles on Daily Kos got me banned. We have since been on radio programs together and I receive his JihadWatch.com email regularly. In keeping with the style of his books, Jihad Watch merely reports the facts concerning all the many acts of Jihad that have happened that day or week, with plenty of links to independent news sources from around the world, to substantiate what is being said. JihadWatch.com more than anything has been, and continues to be, incredibly eye-opening and an excellent source of reference material, for anyone who is serious about understanding the very real threat of Jihad – including Stealth Jihad, both here at home and around the world.

Countless millions of people fall victim to Jihadists every single day. This is perhaps the worst human rights nightmare facing the world in our time. And, there are tragically so very few people out there who are risking their neck, quite literally, to bring us accurate information concerning this. Quite frankly I find most (but certainly not all) of the sites that are critical of Islam to be either hateful or else too religiously motivated for me. And my sense is that this has a lot to do with maintaining the false perception that the Counter Jihad movement is partisan or religiously motivated. JihadWatch.com is the best, as far as I am concerned, when it comes to getting the facts in a reliable, non-partisan, non-proselytizing format.

SUMMARY:

So why would I have had such a wrong perception about Spencer and Geller? In the Liberal world, the world I now mostly just see in my rear view mirror when it comes to many issues I am reconsidering, there is not much tolerance for a diversity of opinion – something which was made abundantly clear when I was 86’d from Daily Kos, as punishment for not singing off the same sheet of music, when it comes to Islamic Supremacy. So I wrongly and naively thought that the Conservative world must work the same way. Huge mistake. The truth is, not only are there a wide range of views within the Conservative world, but even in the subculture of Counter Jihad there are many points of view as to what exactly the threat is and what to do about it.

This simply does not exist so much on the Left. And that is unfortunate, because I believe that America could benefit from having a healthy dialogue between those who are more cautious, respectful of traditional values and those who question whether the way we have always done things is the best way to move forward.

Perhaps no Americans understand better the threat of Jihad more than our brave men and women in uniform. Today as I write this article, in places such as Afghanistan, our troops face the very real threat of being shot in the back by a Muslim ally in uniform who is willing to murder them in cold blood because someone, somewhere burned a book. A book!

What we are seeing is an escalating battle between the civilized world and uncivilized fanatical masses, shaking their fists yelling “Death to America! Death Israel” burning our flags, storming our embassies, beheading our journalists, developing nuclear bombs to point at our ally, Israel and blowing themselves up yelling “Allahu Akbar!” while killing innocent children because they are Jewish.

I often wonder if there are more Islamic Supremacists in the Middle East today who want to see the Jewish race exterminated than there were Germans who wanted the same thing during World War II. This is how serious the threat is from Orthodox Islam. And it is only getting worse.

A new holocaust is brewing and it’s coming from Hamas, Hezbollah, state sponsors of terrorism such as Iran and it finds its roots in the history and the teachings of Orthodox Islam. And this is being taught in the Islamic schools of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, the Palestinian territories – but even more disconcerting is that the hatred of Jews is found in literature sent over to far too many American mosques, from Egypt and Saudi Arabia and published by the Muslim Brotherhood. Anyone who is not concerned about this, anyone who is saying nothing, doing nothing – anyone who thinks this whole thing is an overreaction, ask yourself, “How did Hitler pull off the Holocaust?” and then look in the mirror.

My fellow infidels, you are right to be concerned. No, you are not a bigot or an “Islamophobe” if you speak out. Yes, there are lots of peaceful Muslims all over the world who share our concerns – who are our partners in this effort, who tell their stories and love their children and love America just like we do. You do not need to hate or fear Muslims. Information is the number one enemy of Islamic Supremacy. Spread it!

Whatever I’ve lost, whatever I’ve endured is nothing at all compared to what Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer courageously endure, day after day, year after year, nonstop as they are pummeled by the media, their words distorted, their characters assassinated, portrayed as hate mongers, fear mongers, bigots and fanatics – their pictures pasted onto Islamic websites all over the world, constantly, with the very clear message that these people are the “enemies of Allah” and have “insulted Islam”.

Whether protecting the rights of people abroad – their right to free speech, their right to leave their religion without facing the penalty of execution, the right not to be falsely imprisoned, the right to report if you have been raped and not be punished for it, by being stoned to death or forced to marry your rapist – make no mistake about it – these two courageous truth tellers are risking everything to protect what we all hold dear.

They will most likely have to spend the rest of their lives looking over their shoulders, given the amount of violence so far that has been perpetrated on those who have been murdered in the past for simply speaking out against “the religion of peace”. And they risk their lives for you and for me, and for the liberty and the protection of human rights for billions of people around the world, every single day, year after year.

And although there are many people who are fighting this fight every day, many unsung heroes, when it comes to speaking out in the media, no one has lead the charge more effectively, with moral clarity and courage than Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer.

What is right About Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer – is what is right about America.

Atlas Shrugs blogger Pamela Geller, lightning rod for the hateful fury of the unholy alliance of Islamists and the radical left, is under attack again for daring to run a pro-Israel advertising campaign in New York and San Francisco.

Ms. Geller is executive director of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) and of Stop Islamization of America (SIOA), in addition to being the author of Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance and The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America (with Robert Spencer). For Islamists and the multiculturalist progressives who have bought into the Muslim Brotherhood’s strategy of demonizing its opposition as “Muslim-hating,” Geller is the most public face of the mythical “Islamophobia” in America.

Geller’s AFDI advertisements in San Francisco read, “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat jihad.” In New York, the ads read, “19,250 deadly Islamic attacks since 9/11/01. And counting. It’s not Islamophobia, it’s Islamorealism.”

Some public officials in both cities are taking unprecedented steps to denounce and distance themselves from the ads. As Ms. Geller related in a FrontPage Magazine interview, Greenburgh, New York Town Supervisor Paul Feiner announced that he wanted Metro-North to warn passengers that the ads could be upsetting and don’t represent Metro-North’s views or that of the community. Muslims, he said, “should not be discriminated against. The posters encourage hatred, discrimination and do not help the efforts to fight hate crimes.” Peter Swiderski, the mayor of Hastings-on-Hudson, and the Board of Trustees sent out a letter to the village asking residents to write to the New York City Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) expressing dismay that the ad was not deemed hate speech. The letter also read,

While the Board respects everyone’s right to free speech, we categorically condemn the bigotry and innuendo expressed by this billboard message. To tar a faith and its followers because of the actions of a few is deplorable, hateful and morally repugnant.

Except that the ad doesn’t refer to all Muslims. It doesn’t even “tar” Islam, which jihadists themselves already do a spectacularly good job of tarring. The ad merely notes the 19,250 deadly attacks (a number that has since risen dramatically) since 9/11/01 carried out in the name of Islam. It underscores the “Islamorealism” that people like Feiner and Swiderski, in their politically correct bubble, prefer to deny and ascribe instead to “Islamophobia.” It refers to jihadists, who have no compunction about killing less fanatical Muslims. Apparently Feiner and Swiderski are more outraged that the ad “could be upsetting” to jihadists than they are about the Muslim victims of their co-religionists. How tolerant of them.

Geller countered by responding to Swiderski and asking why no such mailing went out concerning recent anti-Israel ads run by the MTA. “This speaks to a systemic, institutionalized anti-Semitism prevalent in your administration and among the Board. Care to comment?” Geller posed a rhetorical question to FrontPage Mag interviewer Jamie Glazov, “Why didn’t he react as viscerally when the same kiosks had vicious blood libels posted about Israel?

San Francisco, the city that proudly champions every America- and Israel-hating radical nutball or movement you can name, was of course horrified by what it deemed to be racist hate speech from “notorious anti-Muslim hate blogger” Geller and AFDI (the AFDI has been stamped as a “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center, whose mission is to designate as such everyone who disagrees with the well-funded progressive agenda).

The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, reluctant to open itself up to an AFDI lawsuit for suppressing its free speech, did not refuse Geller’s ad but added a disclaimer: “SFMTA Policy Prohibits Discrimination Based On National Origin, Religion and Other Characteristics and Condemns Statements That Describe Any Group As Savages.”

Not content with posting the disclaimer alongside the ad itself, SFMTA Board of Directors chairman Tom Nolan felt compelled to announce publicly that “the recent ad has no value in facilitating constructive dialogue or advancing the cause of peace and justice.”

Actually, the ad concisely offers the only possible support for “the cause of peace and justice” – siding with civilization over barbarism. There can be no “constructive dialogue” with, for example, a fundamentalist regime whose most fanatical desire is to wipe you from the face of the earth. Nothing has been less constructive in terms of derailing the Iranian Ayatollahs and their lust for nuclear weapons than the West’s decades-long effort to engage them in “constructive dialogue.” Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollahs have merely used that as a delaying tactic to string us along while they steamroll ahead with their genocidal plans.

The only people who would find the AFDI ads offensive are those who don’t think twice about disparaging Israel as a genocidal apartheid state propped up by the racist, imperialist United States of AmeriKKKa. These willfully blind hypocrites believe Israel and America are the greatest threat to world peace and that jihad is nothing more than “inner struggle.” Funny how Western multiculturalists leap to the defense of a culture they don’t understand and whose supremacist atrocities they whitewash, while readily denouncing their own culture as the fount of all evil.

Let me be perfectly clear, as our President is fond of saying: Islamic fundamentalists are savages. Israel celebrates life; Islamists love death. Israel gives medical care even to Palestinian failed suicide bombers, sends emergency relief teams worldwide, and makes life-giving scientific advancements. Jihadists behead captive soldiers, partygoers, and children; frame mentally challenged Christian children for blasphemy, the punishment for which is death; hang homosexuals from cranes; crucify suspected spies in Yemen and dissidents in Egypt; wage genocide against Christianity minority communities in the wake of the “Arab Spring”; and celebrate the murderers of children. If that doesn’t validate Ms. Geller’s framing of this conflict as a Clash of Civilization and Savagery, I don’t know what does.

Logged

"You have enemies? Good. That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

Eleven years have passed since the jihad terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and terrorism appears to many to be yesterday's issue. There hasn't been a catastrophic jihad attack on American soil since that fateful day, and neither presidential campaign has done much more than pay lip service to national security issues regarding jihad terrorism. Yet there are numerous indications that the Islamic jihad against the United States is far from over.

President Obama's response to that jihad, however, has been to support the Arab Spring uprisings that have installed Islamic supremacist pro-Shariah regimes in North Africa and to dedicate his Justice Department to gaining special accommodation for Muslims in American businesses and educational institutions.

Osama bin Laden said in his October 2002 letter to the American people that "the first thing that we are calling you to is Islam." He could look with satisfaction at how Islamic law is rapidly becoming the sole law of the land in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia and at how the American political establishment is so warmly disposed toward even Islam's political and supremacist elements that a call simply to investigate Muslim Brotherhood influence in the government met with scorn and charges of McCarthyism.

So pervasive is the unreality about the jihad threat, in fact, that the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, Gen. John Allen, has attributed the rapid rise in attacks by Afghan troops on their American trainers to a lack of affection on the Americans' part. He explained that on one occasion, "one of our battalion commanders publicly and openly hugged his Afghan battalion counterpart. And that solved the problem right on the spot."

In fact, these "green-on-blue" murders keep happening because there is no reliable way to distinguish an Afghan Muslim who supports American troops from one who wants to murder them, and political correctness prevents authorities from making any attempt to do so anyway because it would suggest that Islam is not a religion of peace. So ever more U.S. troops are sacrificed to this madness.

Meanwhile, Mr. Obama has just expressed his enthusiasm for Egypt's new Muslim Brotherhood regime by forgiving $1 billion in Egyptian debt despite the fact that that regime has moved with startling rapidity to dismantle what there was of Egyptian democracy and secure its place in power for decades to come. Egypt's Arab Spring has ushered into power a regime that clearly is dedicated to ramping up the country's already virulent persecution of Christians, imposing principles of Islamic law that will subject women and non-Muslims to institutionalized discrimination and setting Egypt on a path toward open war with Israel.

Mr. Obama is set to repeat the same mistake in Syria, where a post-Assad government is almost certain to contain significant Muslim Brotherhood elements. Yet numerous analysts and pundits want the United States to rush into military action against President Bashar Assad, with no consideration of the likely nature of the regime that would replace him. Mr. Assad is terrible, to be sure. His successors are almost certain to be worse.

Meanwhile, domestically, Mr. Obama's Justice Department has joined lawsuits by Muslims demanding special accommodation in the workplace, forcing American businesses to change their long-standing practices and reinforcing the Islamic supremacist principle that wherever Islamic law and practice conflict with American law and practice, it is the latter that must give way. The Obama administration has not only shown no interest in Muslim Brotherhood organizations such as the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) that are advancing the Brotherhood's stated goal (according to a captured internal document) of "eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house," but even has partnered with several of those organizations on numerous occasions.

While all this is happening, however, jihad plots and attacks against the United States continue, even as the fog of denial and appeasement grows thicker than ever. Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan is accused of murdering 13 Americans at Fort Hood in 2009 in the name of Islam, but the government classified his jihad attack as "workplace violence." Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad predicted recently: "The nations of the region will soon finish off the usurper Zionists in the Palestinian land . A new Middle East will definitely be formed. With the grace of God and help of the nations, in the new Middle East there will be no trace of the Americans and Zionists." In response, the United States hastened to assure the Iranians that it would not support an Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear facilities.

Eleven years after Sept. 11, the U.S. government is thoroughly compromised and naively trying to appease the Islamic jihadists who have vowed to destroy us. Bin Laden, though dead, appears to be emerging as the victor.

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and author of "Did Muhammad Exist?" (Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2012).

Logged

"You have enemies? Good. That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

Eleven years ago, nineteen fanatical Muslims turned hijacked aircraft carrying hundreds of terrified passengers into missiles targeting symbols of American economic might. Nearly 3000 innocents died horribly that day, including hundreds of courageous, selfless first responders making a superhuman effort to rescue their fellow citizens. And for years, when the anniversary of that day rolls around, progressives and their Islamic allies have been rolling their eyes and urging Americans to “get over it.”

They’re weary of being bummed out by reminders of 9/11. They wish we’d forgive and forget that it happened. Stop bringing it up and “harshing their buzz.” Move on, move forward. Some of those people simply don’t grasp that we must not forget because we are still at war with the enemy that attacked us that morning; the rest are very much aware that we are still at war, and they want us to forget because they are siding with that enemy.

It may seem impossible for many to believe that that morning could be forgotten – just as it once seemed impossible to believe that our government could erase words like “jihad” and “Islamist” from our national security lexicon, preventing us from even naming or describing the enemy; or that our government could deem a terror attack on our own soil to be “workplace violence” and whitewash it of its Islamic motivation; or that an American President could announce that one of his duties was to “fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear”; or that he could proclaim us one of the world’s largest Muslim countries.

President Obama signed a proclamation last week designating Friday, September 7 through Sunday, September 9, 2012 National Days of Prayer and Remembrance. “Those who attacked us sought to deprive our Nation of the very ideals for which we stand,” the proclamation states. He is referring to al Qaeda, but the Muslim Brotherhood too seeks to deprive us of our ideals. The Brotherhood seeks the end of a free, capitalist, democratic America no less than al Qaeda does. And yet the President has literally invited them into our White House and has supported them in Egypt throughout the Arab Spring, including a $1 billion aid package to the new Egyptian regime.

So September 7-9 are National Days of Prayer and Remembrance. What about 9/11 itself? In a quiet, seemingly innocuous gesture three years ago, President Obama designated 9/11 as “The National Day of Service and Remembrance.” But the “Remembrance” part seems to be an afterthought, because the idea was to get Americans to “engage in meaningful service to create change… in four key areas”: education, health, energy/environment and community renewal. None of those seems to have anything to do with honoring 9/11, but that was the point: Muslim-American playwright Wajahat Ali (and one of the writers behind the Soros-funded “Fear, Inc.” report that smeared anti-jihadists as Islamophobic bigots) wrote in the Huffington Post at that time that “we are trying to move away from focusing on 9/11 as a day of horror, and instead make it a day to recommit ourselves to national service.”

Why? Because in order for Islamists and the radical left to advance their agenda of dismantling American exceptionalism and recasting America as the villain in our history books, they need Americans to put 9/11 behind us, let the victims slip from our memories, ignore that we are still at war with an enemy that danced in the streets to celebrate the attacks, and turn a blind eye to the fact that our civilization is under assault by a subversive stealth jihad.

Americans can commit themselves to public service any or every other day of the year; 9/11 should be reserved for solemn remembrance and renewed commitment to preserving American security, values and sovereignty. Greening your neighborhood? What does “green” have to do with 9/11? Only that it’s the color of Islam. Education? Fine – educate yourself and your children about 9/11 and the continuing threats of stealth jihad and “creeping sharia.” Environment and community renewal? Great – beautify your block by flying the Stars and Stripes on 9/11. It sends a simple message to the enemy and their useful idiots that you believe that making this day about installing fluorescent light bulbs trivializes the memory of 9/11′s victims, and that you will never let their deaths be erased from history.

How do things stand on this 9/11, eleven years later? Among other highlights, we captured 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and a SEAL team took out bin Laden (no thanks to the resistance of Obama, despite all the crowing about his “gutsy” choice to green-light the mission). To his credit, Obama has green-lit drones that continue to take out key al Qaeda terrorists, such as the traitorous Anwar al-Awlaki. We have foiled dozens of attempted terrorist attacks on our own soil. All to the good.

Now for the bad. We have a president who embraces the Muslim Brotherhood. His Secretary of State is actively facilitating the Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s goal to criminalize “Islamophobia.” Our Dept. of Homeland Security has to be waterboarded before it will even mention the word “Islam.” We are dumping the problem of a nuclear Iran on our erstwhile ally Israel. We have a military leadership that would consider a lack of diversity to be the most tragic result of the Ft. Hood shooting. We are throwing our troops in Afghanistan under the bus in a chimeric effort to win the hearts and minds of people who have neither. Our news and entertainment media collude with the Brotherhood front group CAIR to perpetuate the victimhood myth that Muslim-Americans have suffered a terrible backlash ever since 9/11. This is a recipe for cultural suicide.

But perhaps the 9/11 complainers are onto something. Maybe Americans should get over 9/11. Here’s how I recommend we do that. The best way this country can “get over” 9/11 and honor the memory of the dead and their families is to crush Islamic fundamentalism out of existence, the way we crushed Japanese imperialism and Nazism. Lay waste to the ideology that threatens the fundamental values that America and the West hold dear. Stamp out threats to our freedoms, to human rights, to our hard-won civilization. When we have eradicated sharia law and its proponents from the face of the earth, then Americans can truly and freely “get over” 9/11. Until then, the unholy alliance of progressives and Islamists should be forewarned that true Americans will never forgive, never forget.

Logged

"You have enemies? Good. That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

While catching up on emails I found this about the credentials of some of the folks Obj cites:

"You might want to point out the different standard JDN has for an unrepentant terrorist that started Barrack's political career and a repentant terrorist such as Shoebat. Also, Spencer is a scholar who is fluent in Arabic and McCarthy is a former Deputy US Marshal, former Assistant US Attorney who was part of the prosecution team that went after the first WTC jihadists, If I recall correctly."

Actually, while I may not agree with McCarthy, I have never criticized his credentials.

As for Spencer, I think you are using the term "scholar" loosely, merely, if in fact he does (I couldn't find confirmation) speak Arabic hardly makes him a "scholar". I know a few people who speak Arabic; I speak Japanese, but none of us are "scholars" on the subject. He has no advance degrees in the subject nor has he published in any scholarly journals or "respected" publications.

As for Shoebat versus Obama and his "friends", well, I'm not quite sure I agree with you; Obama's "friends" CV are rather impressive versus Shoebat's only claim to fame, "former terrorist" however, in the interest of truth (and getting along) if you notice, I have never quoted or referenced one of them to make a point.

I was raised as an evangelical Christian in America, and any discussion of Christian-Jewish-Muslim relations around the world must include the phenomenon of American Islamophobia, for which large sectors of evangelical Christianity in America serve as a greenhouse.

At a time when U.S. embassies are being attacked and when people are getting killed over an offensive, adolescent and puerile film targeting Islam - beyond pathetic in its tawdriness – we must begin to own up to the reality of evangelical Islamaphobia.

Many of my own relatives receive and forward pious-sounding and alarm-bell-ringing e-mails that trumpet (IN LOTS OF CAPITAL LETTERS WITH EXCLAMATION POINTS!) the evils of Islam, that call their fellow evangelicals and charismatics to prayer and “spiritual warfare” against those alleged evils, and that often - truth be told - contain lots of downright lies.

For example, one recent e-mail claimed “Egyptian Christians in Grave Danger as Muslim Brotherhood Crucifies Opponents." Of course, that claim has been thoroughly debunked, but the sender’s website still (as of Friday) claims that the Muslim Brotherhood has “crucified those opposing" Egyptian President Mohamed Morsy "naked on trees in front of the presidential palace while abusing others.”

Many sincere and good-hearted evangelicals have never yet had a real Muslim friend, and now they probably never will because their minds have been so prejudiced by Islamophobic broadcasts on so-called Christian television and radio.

Janet Parshall, for example, a popular talk show host on the Moody Radio Network, frequently hosts Walid Shoebat, a Muslim-evangelical convert whose anti-Muslim claims, along with claims about his own biography, are frequently questioned. John Hagee, a popular televangelist, also hosts Shoebat as an expert on Islam, as does the 700 Club.

Many Christian bookstores that (used to) sell my books, still sell books such as Paul Sperry’s "Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington" (Thomas Nelson, 2008). In so doing, they fuel conspiracy theories such as the ones U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minnesota, promoted earlier this year.

In recent days, we’ve seen how irresponsible Muslim media outlets used the tawdry 13-minute video created by a tiny handful of fringe Christian extremists to create a disgusting caricature of all Christians - and all Americans - in Muslim minds. But too few Americans realize how frequently American Christian media personalities in the U.S. similarly prejudice their hearers’ minds with mirror-image stereotypes of Muslims.

Meanwhile, many who are pastors and leaders in evangelicalism hide their heads in the current issue of Christianity Today or World Magazine, acting as if the kinds of people who host Islamophobic sentiments swim in a tiny sidestream, not in the mainstream, of our common heritage. I wish that were true.

The events of this past week, if we let them, could mark a turning point - a hitting bottom, if you will - in the complicity of evangelicalism in Islamophobia. If enough evangelicals watch or try to watch the film trailer that has sparked such outrage in the Middle East, they may move beyond the tipping point.

I tried to watch it, but I couldn’t make it halfway to the 13-minute mark. Everything about it was tawdry, pathetic, even pornographic. All but the most fundamentalist believers from my evangelical Christian tribe who watch that video will be appalled and ashamed to be associated with it.

It is hate speech. It is no different from the anti-Semitic garbage that has been all too common in Western Christian history. It is sub-Christian - beneath the dignity of anyone with a functioning moral compass.

Islamophobic evangelical Christians - and the neo-conservative Catholics and even some Jewish folks who are their unlikely political bedfellows of late - must choose.

Will they press on in their current path, letting Islamophobia spread even further amongst them? Or will they stop, rethink and seek to a more charitable approach to our Muslim neighbors? Will they realize that evangelical religious identity is under assault, not by Shariah law, not by the liberal media, not by secular humanism from the outside, but by forces within the evangelical community that infect that religious identity with hostility?

If I could get one message through to my evangelical friends, it would be this: The greatest threat to evangelicalism is evangelicals who tolerate hate and who promote hate camouflaged as piety. (emphasis added).

No one can serve two masters. You can’t serve God and greed, nor can you serve God and fear, nor God and hate.

The broad highway of us-them thinking and the offense-outrage-revenge reaction cycle leads to self-destruction. There is a better way, the way of Christ who, when reviled, did not revile in return, who when insulted, did not insult in return, and who taught his followers to love even those who define themselves as enemies.

Yes, “they” – the tiny minority of Muslims who turn piety into violence – have big problems of their own. But the way of Christ requires all who claim to be Christians to examine our own eyes for planks before trying to perform first aid on the eyes of others. We must admit that we have our own tiny minority whose message and methods we have not firmly, unitedly and publicly repudiated and rejected.

To choose the way of Christ is not appeasement. It is not being a “sympathizer.”

The way of Christ is a gentle strength that transcends the vicious cycles of offense-outrage-revenge.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Brian D. McLaren.

Anti-American violence throughout the Muslim world, ostensibly over a cheap Internet film denigrating the Muslim prophet Muhammad, may be misguided, but it's a result of "the lack of dignity, the lack of respect that they're being shown." And it's up to America to change policies to calm things. That's the message a Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) official brought to a television interview Sunday.

And that's not the worst thing about Cyrus McGoldrick's comments.

McGoldrick's interview was on Press TV, an Iranian government-controlled English-language news outlet. He never condemned the violence outright, saying "We're very sensitive to the loss of life" and "people's lives are always to be mourned." The angry mobs show "no real understanding of nuance" because the American government neither financed the film nor had anything to do with its distribution.

Few protestors likely even saw the video, said McGoldrick, civil rights director for CAIR's New York chapter. "And I don't think it's about the film at all, really, I think that people are tired. People have had enough of what is seen by them, what looks to them like America's war on Islam. And this is one of the symptoms of that."That "war on Islam" narrative is acknowledged to be among the most effective messages in radicalizing Muslims. Even the White House acknowledges this. In the past week, a federal judge sentenced a 29-year-old to 30 years in prison after he plotted to detonate a suicide bomb inside the United States Capitol and arrested an 18-year-old in Chicago who thought he was detonating a car bomb outside a bar.

Both Amine El-Khalifi and Adel Daoud thought America was waging war on Islam. McGoldrick could have told his Iranian network interviewer that such a perception is not only wrong, but dangerous. He could have pointed out that Muslims in America, especially Shia, are freer to practice their faith than in most Sunni Muslim nations.But he didn't. Instead, he raised doubt over the most fundamental American freedom. Americans enjoy "allegedly a freedom of speech, a freedom of expression –political expression and religious expression," he explained. "And of course, that comes with it some rights, but also, of course, some responsibilities."

The recent violence, including the attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi, Libya which killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, might have be seen as "the straw that broke the camel's back in terms of Muslims' patience with American and Western intervention," McGoldrick said.

That puts the onus on the United States "to very critically think about how much more weight will we put on the Muslim world? How many more attacks? How many more drone strikes? How many more coups … until we realize that we need to take a principled stand, and a just stand, to make sure that we respect human rights, sovereignty and dignity all over the world."

McGoldrick is among a number of CAIR officials who routinely appear on Press TV, usually to denigrate American politics or policy. But McGoldrick's affinity with the Iranian regime runs deeper. He promoted the August 17 "al-Quds Day" rally in New York, advertising and marketing virulent anti-Israel rhetoric at the Iranian-inspired event. Quds Day is a creation of the Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini and a frequent vehicle for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to call for Israel's elimination and to publicly delegitimize the West. Its organizers have adapted resolutions that endorse Hamas, and dismiss Palestinian terrorism as simple "side issues." McGoldrick promoted the al-Quds New York rally through twitter posts and even the CAIR-NY website.

Claims of Jewish control of the media and American politics, and alleged war-mongering by Israel and America radiated prominently this year through similar rallies held in Washington D.C., Chicago and Detroit. McGoldrick, of Iranian and Irish heritage, touted similar rhetoric at the New York rally, denying that he is anti-Semitic but boasting he "most definitely" is anti-Zionist. He accused Israel of theft and murder, and instructed the "oppressed" to stand up to the "oppressor."

"See because today, all of us we are given the opportunity because today Zionist entities stand accused of theft ... Today, Zionist entities stand accused of murder. And if we don't make sure that we detach ourselves from that oppression, than we are accused of the same," McGoldrick said.

"Make sure that when you leave here you don't pay your money to Zionist companies. Make sure you don't fund Zionists oppression. Make sure you don't fund the IDF. That you don't fund the massacres that are happening right now on our tax dime. Make sure that you are not complicit in the oppression that is happening here today."

McGoldrick's statements were not unique to al-Quds Day. In a Twitter post last month, he blasted the New York Police Department for being "Thuggish, criminal, violent, abusive, even genocidal. This is the #NYPD. How many more have to die?"

He spoke at the 2011 Quds Day rally, too, where he also mocked the NYPD and boasted that Quds Day had become "a powerful event." During a spoken word performance, he smiled as he said he's "just out here to Islamicize America, 'Cause more peace shouldn't make them so hysterical."

It's a line he used again in greater detail during a March appearance at the New York Institute of Technology.

In a program entitled "The Muslim American Identity," McGoldrick said America can be more peaceful and decent if it is more Islamic.

"We should not reinforce this distinction or between Islam and the West, as if they're mutually exclusive. We need to make sure that – oh, the camera's gonna love this one – we need to Islamicize America … That's, but you gotta say it with a smile on. You can't just be like – I'm here to Islamicize, you have to – I'm here to Islamicize America you know. There's nothing wrong with that. You know and that shouldn't scare anybody. I'm not forcing any rules on people. Islam is a mercy to us to improve ourselves. You know so if we're working, an Islamic society is a decent society, you know and you're not compelling anybody to do anything, just lead by example, that's all."

In the same speech, McGoldrick lamented the convictions of two Muslims who worked to aid al-Qaida during an appearance at the New York Institute of Technology. Aafia Siddiqui was convicted of attempting to murder Americans who detained her in Afghanistan, while Tarek Mehanna was convicted of conspiracy to provide material, conspiracy to commit murder in a foreign country, and making false statements to law enforcement. He went to Yemen in 2004 hoping to be trained at a terrorist camp with the goal of plotting jihad against American troops stationed in Iraq. When that didn't work, he came back to the United States and launched his own online al-Qaida "media wing" to translate and distribute publications by the terrorist group.

To McGoldrick, these cases prove that the government is out to get Muslims for thought crimes.

"This is, it's like 'Minority Report' on crack. Like we have two cases, you know Tarek Mehanna up in Boston, we have Aafia Siddiqui in New York, who these people were convicted with no physical evidence of a crime whatsoever. The prosecution didn't even bother. They basically made the case – well these people don't like America, so oogie oogie boogie, and jury gave them like, they jury gave them 86 years to Dr. Aafia, and Tarek Mehanna he convicted I think, I'm not sure if he's been sentenced yet, but it's not gonna be a few months. The, it's amazing, you know the level of thought now has been criminalized. And that's what it comes down to – thought."Last month, McGoldrick linked to a 1991 video from his Twitter account showing Siddiqui as a school girl. "Can't watch this without tearing up," he wrote. "May God free our sister Aafia."

CAIR-NY encouraged its followers through a Twitter post to support Siddiqui at her appeal last February. McGoldrick personally and publically offered Siddiqui his prayers.As he showed on Press TV, McGoldrick also possesses a knack for peddling propaganda that America is engaged in a "War on Islam." In January, McGoldrick told the Queens Chronicle that a wave of arson attacks by a lone suspect on mosques was driven by racism, even though police determined personal vendettas were in play. In one case, a mosque had refused to let the suspect use its restroom. McGoldrick capitalized on the moment.

"It was only a matter of time before the war abroad became a war at home," McGoldrick said. "Fearmongering about Islam and other American minorities have ripped this country apart. Warmongering politicians and willing media confirm this narrative, the warrantless incomprehensive surveillance of the Muslim community by the NYPD confirms this narrative and the destruction of the Constitution in the name of the war on terror confirms this narrative."

McGoldrick also advocated for the Muslim Brotherhood political ascension in Egypt, blaming Israel for any effort by the military to prevent that result.

"My heart is with Egypt after yesterday's military coup," McGoldrick wrote in a Twitter post. "May Allah protect the revolution & people from the military doing Israel's bidding."McGoldrick joined CAIR-NY in December 2010 and has a robust history of incendiary statements since, including his comments on an Iranian network.

Because CAIR employs McGoldrick, it is accountable for his actions and incendiary statements. Government agencies and elected officials should take note that CAIR does nothing to rein in young extremists like McGoldrick, who promote Iranian-inspired hate rallies and make false statements about law enforcement.

But most of McGoldrick's rhetoric falls neatly in line with that asserted by his CAIR bosses. That's something the State Department should consider the next time it taps a CAIR official for travel abroad, or as a dialogue partner. The FBI has found CAIR is not "an appropriate liaison partner." McGoldrick's actions only reinforce the reasons why.

All too familiar. CAIR is a Muslim Brotherhood front. It was founded by the MB and is an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation "charity" operation which was shut down by the Federal government - the largest terrorist financing prosecution in U.S. history. Note how it is always the non-Muslim who must give up his freedom of speech in order to "respect Islam." CAIR is part of the stealth jihad movement in the United States - in fact, it is the most visible example of it.

Those non-Muslims who continue to apologize for "offensive" speech, cartoons, literature, etc. are simply enabling their own destruction. That includes our present Commander In Chief. The fruits of this appeasement are in plain view all across the Middle East today as angry Islamic mobs chant "Death to America" and "Obama - We are all Osama now." Of course, to say such a thing is, in the eyes of the politically-correct fool, "bigoted and hateful." No - it is simply the truth - and unfortunately when it comes to Islam - truth is the new "hate speech."

Logged

"You have enemies? Good. That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

If anyone needed evidence that Hillary Clinton is in the pocket of the Muslim Brotherhood, the events of the last few days should be more than sufficient. On the anniversary of 9/11, on what should be a day of shame for the Muslim world, the US Embassy in Cairo issued a statement condemning critics of Islamofascism in language appropriate to the office of propaganda for the Muslim Brotherhood. Islamofascists launched violent attacks on Americans, repeating the outrages in miniature of the World Trade Center attacks 11 years ago. In the face of these outrages the posture of the U.S. government is one that would make Neville Chamberlain blush. In four years Barack Obama has managed to turn the entire Middle East over to America’s enemies. So that our readers can understand how this has happened and how far advanced the infiltration of the Muslim Brotherhood into the Obama administration has progressed, we are publishing this pamphlet by Frank Gaffney, President of the Center for Security Policy, called The Muslim Brotherhood in the Obama Administration. We are printing 200,000 copies to distribute to concerned Americans. We are selling them at cost if you buy 25 or more to share with your friends.—David Horowitz

Chris Christie quite recently called Qatanani his "friend." Will he explain to his friend about the importance of the freedom of speech now?

Investigative journalist Daniel Greenfield reports that “despite the fact that Mohammed Qatanani was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, the organization that is behind both al-Qaeda and Hamas, despite his own guilty plea to being a member of Hamas, and despite the fact that even in the United States, he had defended a charity that provided funds to children of suicide bombers (this is done as an incentive to reassure terrorists that if they die their families will be taken care of), Qatanani was not deported.”

"Free Speech That Mocks Islam Is National Security Threat for U.S., Prominent NJ Imam Tells TheBlaze," by Tiffany Gabbay for The Blaze, September 20 (thanks to all who sent this in):

...In fact, so grave is mockery of the prophet considered, that the cleric – Mohammad Qatanani, who leads one of the largest mosques in New Jersey – even believes free speech that criticizes Islam poses a national security threat to the U.S. and that those responsible should be investigated by the Department of Homeland Security.“We, as Americans, have to put limits and borders [on] freedom of speech,” Qatanani, leader of the Islamic Center of Passaic County (ICPC), told TheBlaze. He explained that while Americans may ”have the freedom“ to speak their mind, ultimately, they “have no right to [talk about Muslim] holy issues“ as it will incite ”hatred or war among people.”

Qatanani said he thinks agitators who slander Islam, or, more specifically, the Prophet Muhammad, incite violence and hence, pose a national security risk that threatens the safety of Americans at home and abroad. Thus, America should disregard its First Amendment as it is typically applied and instead act in accordance with sharia law for the ultimate “good” of society.

In an exclusive interview with TheBlaze, the cleric, who was nearly deported in 2008 for failing to disclose his former ties to the terrorist organization Hamas on a 1996 Green Card application, explained that Muslims are required by Islam to respect the law of the land in their host-countries. He followed up that statement, however, with a treatise on how those who slander the prophet be pursued legally.

While some leaders within the Muslim community have spoken out against the anti-America driven violence in the Middle East, many have qualified their condemnation with moral equivalence, treating a film dubbed “Innocence of Muslims” (which some claim served as the catalyst for the attacks), with even harsher disdain than they do murder. Qatanani said the Obama White House should take legal action against the filmmakers.

“My position is that White House has to say strong in its condemnation [of the filmmakers] and take this person to court. If he is innocent, we will accept that… The government has strong case against this person.”

When asked what can be done to prevent future attacks, Qatanani invoked Homeland Security again, suggesting that the department actually step-in to prevent artists, composers, movie-makers, or satirists (among others), from producing works critical of Islam and the Prophet Muhammad. He believes it is in America’s best interest to quell this kind of free speech as it “ruins” America’s image abroad and will ultimately hurt people.

Qatanani’s statements make it appear that, in so many words, the cleric is advocating for the U.S. to operate by sharia law – the religious law of Islam – when it comes to freedom of speech as it relates to Islam. If so, it would seem to echo comments in a previous report on TheBlaze outlining Islamists’ “10-year plan” to make slandering Islam unlawful on an international level.

American freedom versus Islamic freedom

One of the most revealing insights made by the controversial faith leader came when he juxtaposed American freedom with the type of freedom permitted under sharia law.

The imam acknowledged that observant Muslims view freedom only through the lens of that which is permitted by the Quran and Sunnah, the two sacred texts of Islam, and is therefore much different from the way Americans view freedom.

“They [Muslims] think our [American] freedoms are too much,” Qatanani said. “The freedom of the American people is so different from their [Muslims'] freedoms. We believe freedoms have limits and rules, otherwise we will get people into trouble…Freedom according to Islam must be according to the Quran and Sunnah. You can do [anything] you like within the teachings of these two resources. This is the difference and main reason [for the conflict].”

A different standard of freedom?

“People there [in the Middle East] don’t understand the American Constitution and freedom of speech,” Qatanani said. We have to understand each other because misunderstanding is a killing issue… The issue of Prophet Muhammad is very delicate – they [Muslims] will not accept in any way, anybody who talks badly about Muhammad.”...

Posted by Robert on September 22, 2012 1:47 PM

Logged

"You have enemies? Good. That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

What this man so eloquently speaks of has not happened here in the U.S. - yet. It will however, if our politicians continue to listen to and accommodate the complaints of CAIR and their ilk. Those of us who simply want to prevent this from happening are labeled as "anti-Muslim bigots" by the left (which includes most of the media) in this country:

U.S. Imams Call for Restricting Free SpeechAll-American Muslim imam Sheikh Husham al-Husainy: "They should put a law not to insult a spiritual leader." byRobert Spencer

BioSeptember 24, 2012 - 1:33 pm

As the Muhammad movie riots continued into a second week, two imams based in the United States joined the calls from the grand imam of Al-Azhar, the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia, and the Muslim Brotherhood for the U.S. to criminalize criticism of Islam.

Sheikh Husham al-Husainy of the Karbalaa Islamic Education Center in Dearborn, Michigan, said about the worldwide Muslim riots that “the only solution is to replace the hate with love.” And “love,” in his mind, meant that “they should put a law not to insult a spiritual leader.”

Meanwhile, Imam Mohammad Qatanani of the Islamic Center of Passaic County, New Jersey, said that “we, as Americans, have to put limits and borders [on] freedom of speech,” for while Americans do indeed have the freedom of speech, they have “no right” to talk about topics holy to Muslims, for to do so will lead to “hatred or war among people.”

Al-Husainy and Qatanani are not marginal, fringe characters. Al-Husainy last year was the featured cleric on All-American Muslim, a reality showed that aired on The Learning Channel and was dedicated to countering the chimerical threat of “Islamophobia” by showing Muslims as ordinary folks leading ordinary lives. Yet, according to Walid Shoebat and Ben Barrack, he is also “a signatory to the Jerusalem Document of 2009, which reads more like Mein Kampf. It refers to the war on Zionism as a war between “good and evil.” Zionism is considered an “aggression” that is infecting “the entire human race.” Muslims are told to “get ready for the holy Jihad.” The document also expresses support for a jihad terrorist group: “We remind our sons to get ready to carry out their duty in Holy Jihad and continue the path which our young valiant men in Hezbollah began in Southern Lebanon.”

Al-Husainy also gave an invocation at the Democratic National Committee’s Annual Winter Meeting in 2007. Al-Husainy prayed:

Through you, God, we unite. So guide us to the right path. The path of the people you bless, not the path of the people you doom. … And help us to stop the war and violence, and oppression and occupation.

He was echoing the Fatiha, the first sura of the Qur’an and most common prayer of Islam. It asks Allah: “Show us the straight path, the path of those whom Thou hast favoured; not the (path) of those who earn Thine anger nor of those who go astray.” The traditional and mainstream Islamic understanding of this is that the “straight path” is Islam, while the path of those who have earned Allah’s anger are the Jews, and those who have gone astray are the Christians. Thus al-Husainy was condemning Judaism and Christianity right under the bowed heads of the assembled Democrats. And his reference to “occupation” was clearly, coming from this supporter of Hezbollah, a dig at Israel.

despite the fact that Mohammed Qatanani was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, the organization that is behind both al-Qaeda and Hamas, despite his own guilty plea to being a member of Hamas, and despite the fact that even in the United States, he had defended a charity that provided funds to children of suicide bombers (this is done as an incentive to reassure terrorists that if they die their families will be taken care of), Qatanani was not deported.

Yet New Jersey Governor Chris Christie recently had Qatanani at the governor’s mansion for his Ramadan Iftar dinner. Christie was glad to see him, calling him his “friend” and telling him before the audience: “I’m glad to have you here.” Of Qatanani, he said: “In all my interactions with the imam, he has attempted to be a force for good in his community, in our state with law enforcement, with those of us who have gotten to know him for the years.” Will Christie now explain to his friend about the importance of the freedom of speech?

The striking thing about the statements from al-Husainy and Qatanani is not that they called for restriction of the freedom of speech. After all, they are mainstream Muslims, and Islamic law, both Sunni (Qatanani) and Shi’ite (al-Husainy), denies the freedom of speech and forbids criticism of Allah or Muhammad on pain of death. What is striking is that despite their obvious attachment to Sharia in its traditional and mainstream form, as well as their support for the jihad terror groups Hamas (Qatanani) and Hezbollah (al-Husainy), both clerics continue to enjoy a reputation as “moderates.” Qatanani has the fervent allegiance of a state governor and prominent player in national politics, and al-Husainy is featured at gatherings of a major party and on national television.

It is certain that if al-Husainy and Qatanani were evangelical Christian pastors who had expressed support for the Ku Klux Klan and called for repeal of the First Amendment, Chris Christie, the Democratic National Committee, and The Learning Channel would be nowhere near them, except to issue condemnations wherever necessary. But when it comes to Muslims, the rules are different: so avid are politicians and the mainstream media to find “moderates” and feature them, thereby proving that they are not “Islamophobic,” that they uncritically embrace any Muslim leader who smiles and talks of peace.

What’s even worse is that when these “moderates” are exposed as not quite so moderate as all that, no one cares. No supporter of al-Husainy or Qatanani is going to rebuke either one for their opposition to the First Amendment – not even Chris Christie. More’s the pity.

Very disturbing, indeed. Stealth jihad is an ugly reality, and we Americans (and our elected leaders) had damn well better take it seriously, or we will be destroyed from within. These jihadists are cunning and extremely well-organized. They are also patient and determined. We ignore them at our peril. Anyone who wants to understand the the depth and seriousness of this problem would benefit from reading Robert Spencer's 2008 book, "Stealth Jihad." I can't recommend it highly enough.

Glenn Beck's recent documentary "The Project," (a full year in the making, and just released last week) illustrates just how far this infiltration has progressed within our institutions in the four years since the publication of Spencer's book. The 2-hour documentary can be viewed at www.theblaze.com/theproject/

« Last Edit: October 06, 2012, 08:50:20 AM by objectivist1 »

Logged

"You have enemies? Good. That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.